Fact And Truth,

The test of thought (Gedankenexperiment) is “real” in the sense that it has a “real-life” relationship in the form of electrical activity in the brain. But they are clearly not related to the facts “ out there ”. They are not true statements.

But are they untrue because it is not related to facts? How are truth and truth related?

One answer is that the Truth is about the possibility that an event may occur. If it is true – it should happen and if it is false – it will not happen. This is a binary world of extreme conditions. Should all events take place? Of course not. If not, would they be right? Does a statement have to have a real-life coin in order to be true?

Naturally, the answer is yes. We can’t think of though separated from the brainwaves. A statement that remains valid only seems to exist in the lower world between truth and falsehood. It only becomes true through physical phenomena, through phenomena, by the simulation of real life. If we were to prove that he would never do that, we would be justified in calling him a liar. This is a thousand-year-old release of concrete, Aristotelian logic. Logical statements refer to the earth, so, if a statement cannot be shown to be directly related to the earth, it is not true.

This approach, however, is the result of some basic assumptions:

First, that the earth is limited and that it is nearing its end. To say that something has not happened cannot be true to say that it will never happen (that is, to say that time and space – the earth – is over and will soon be over).

Second, truth and falsehood are thought to be intertwined. Quantum and intricate logic have long put this. There are real-world conditions that are true and false. The particle can “be” in two places at the same time. This mysterious concept is not in line with our daily experiences but if there is anything we have learned in physics over the past seventy years that the world does not fit into our daily experience.

The third assumption is that the psychic realm is subject to one material. It is a membrane with a certain size of hole. We filter only the types of experiences that are well-defined, with limited (and impartial) feelings, organized in a way that usually supports us until we die. We are neutral and do not just watch. In fact, the very idea of ​​the viewer is disputed – as modern physics, on the other hand, with Eastern philosophy, has pointed out.

Imagine that a mad scientist has succeeded in filling all the earth’s water with a powerful hallucinogen. At one point, everyone on earth saw a huge flying saucer. What about this sauce? Is it true? Is it “real”?

There is no doubt that the sauce does not exist. But who would say that? If this statement is left unspecified – does it mean that it cannot be, and therefore not true? In this (deceptive flying tragedy), a statement that remains unspoken is a true statement – and the statement made by millions is a blatant lie.

However, the argument can be made that a flying sauce existed – yet in the minds of those who drank dirty water. What is this way of life? In what sense is seeing something “unreasonable”? The psychophysical problem is that there is no causal relationship that can be established between thought and real-life adjustment, the brainwaves go hand in hand. In addition, this leads to unlimited regression. If brainwaves create an idea – who created them, who made them happen? In other words: who (maybe what) do you think?

The topic is so confusing that to say that psychology is just a piece of information to think about

Therefore, it is advisable to distinguish between ontological and epistemological. But what? The facts are determined mathematically and statistically by knowledgeable and intelligent observers. Their “presence” is based on a sound epistemological level. However, we think that if there are no viewers the facts will continue their existence, they will not lose their “truth”, their true quality of independent and unchanging life.

What about the truth? Indeed, it depends on solid technical foundations. Something is true or false and that is it. However, we saw that the truth is psychologically determined and, therefore, in danger, for example, to have opinions. Moreover, the obscurity of the lines in Quantum, which is not Aristotelian, logics means one thing twice: whether truth and falsehood are “only in our heads” (epistemological) – or that there is something wrong with our description of the world, the exegetic (brain) method. If the latter case is true that the world contains true and false values ​​combined – but the organ that identifies these organizations (brain) is corrupt. Ironically, the second method also assumes that at least the concept of true and false values ​​depends on the existence of some scientific discovery.

Can something be true and real and false in our minds? Just like (remember “Rashomon”). Could the distortion be true? Yes, it can. This is what we call visual or emotional deception. Even stiffness is the deception of our senses – there are no such things as solid objects (remember the 99.99999% physicist desk with colorful floating minutes).

To reconcile these two perspectives, we must let go of the old (perhaps most important in our mind) belief that we do not know the world. We probably don’t know and this is the source of our confusion. The world can be inhabited by “true” and “false” things. It may be true that the truth exists and that lies do not exist. But we will never know because we cannot know anything about the earth as it really is.

However, we are fully equipped to know about mental events within our own heads. That’s where the real-world presentation is presented. We know these symbols (concepts, images, symbols, language as a whole) – and we mistake them for the world itself. Since we do not have a way of knowing the world directly (without the intervention of our translation processes) we cannot say when a particular representation is like an independent and consistent and inconsistent event. When we see a picture – it could be the result of interacting with the light outside us (literally “real”), or the result of a dream, drug-induced deception, fatigue, and any other number of brain events that are not really related to the world. These are situations that depend on the audience and, depending on the agreement between a sufficient number of viewers, are judged to be true or “happened” (e.g., religious miracles).

Asking if something is true or not is not a logical question unless it affects our inner world and our energy as observers. When we say “true” we mean “you are”, or “you were”, or “you will surely be” (the sun will rise tomorrow). But the present can only be seen in our minds. Truth, then, is nothing but an attitude. Presence is determined by looking at and comparing the two (external and internal, physical and mental). This paints a picture of a world that may be very much in line with reality – and, again and again, it is possible.